This chapter provides an overview of private philanthropy for development in low- and middle-income countries over 2020-2023. It summarises the report’s findings on financing trends, as well as on the strategies of foundations to enable locally led development and catalytic partnerships. It also outlines the key challenges they face and offers recommendations.
Private Philanthropy for Development (Third Edition)
Taking Stock of Philanthropy’s Contribution to Development
Abstract
This third edition of the OECD Private Philanthropy for Development flagship report comes at a pivotal moment for international development finance. As the world faces a series of overlapping crises – economic shocks, geopolitical instability, climate emergencies, and mounting debt distress – the limitations of the system designed in the aftermath of World War II – both in terms of governance and wealth redistribution – have become evident. Despite decades of efforts to reform development co‑operation, and the adoption of ambitious frameworks such as the Monterrey Consensus, Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and the 2030 Agenda, the global architecture for financing sustainable development remains fragmented and has fallen short of its ambitions. Today, only 35% of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets are on track (UN, 2025[1]) and low- and middle-income countries face a financing gap of USD 4.3 trillion (Matzner and Steininger, 2025[2]).
Against this backdrop, philanthropy is a critical, though still underutilised, component of the development finance ecosystem. Foundations bring unique advantages: flexibility, risk tolerance, and the ability to catalyse resources for underfunded priorities. Yet their role is often poorly understood, and their potential to complement public and private capital remains largely untapped. This report seeks to address that gap by providing the most comprehensive dataset available on philanthropic engagement in development, based on reporting from 506 organisations active across low- and middle-income countries. It examines not only the scale and direction of philanthropic flows – USD 68.2 billion between 2020 and 2023 – but also the institutional practices, governance models, and collaborative strategies that shape how foundations operate and engage in and with low- and middle-income countries.
Recent global developments also underscore the importance and timeliness of this analysis. The COVID‑19 pandemic triggered the sharpest economic contraction since the Great Depression (UN, 2021[3]), pushing millions back into poverty. Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine compounded these shocks, diverting official development assistance (ODA) and driving up food and energy costs (OECD, 2024[4]). Meanwhile, climate change continues to accelerate, with 2024 marking the first year in which global temperatures surpassed the 1.5°C threshold (WMO, 2025[5]). These crises have converged in a context of declining aid budgets – global ODA fell by 7.1% in 2024 and is projected to contract further (OECD, 2025[6]) – while debt distress affects 60% of low-income countries (World Bank, 2024[7]). The result is a polycrisis that demands a more inclusive, resilient, and innovative financing system.
The Fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) recognised this imperative, framing the moment as an opportunity to reshape the development finance architecture for the 21st century. For the first time, an international agreement (UN, 2025[8]) explicitly acknowledged philanthropy as a strategic partner, calling for multilateral development banks to create catalytic capital pools with contributions from foundations and philanthropies. The Seville Platform for Action reinforced this commitment through initiatives such as the OECD Network of Foundations Working for Development’s “Data, Dialogue, Deals” Meta-Platform, designed to strengthen collaboration among foundations, Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and development agencies (UN, 2025[9]).
While philanthropy cannot match the scale of ODA or multilateral finance, it can play a transformative role: de-risking investments, funding early-stage innovations, and supporting sectors often overlooked by larger actors, such as the intersection of health and climate. Foundations are already stepping into this space – 18% of blended finance transactions since 2014 have involved at least one foundation (Convergence, 2024[10]), and recent initiatives like Humanity AI signal a growing appetite for technological innovation (McArthur Foundation, 2025[11]) and cross-sector alignment. Foundations play a key role in de-risking transactions, increasingly support underfunded priority areas that are critical for development, such as the health and climate intersection (The Rockefeller Foundation, 2025[12]), funding early-stage initiatives, and co-investing with Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to align risk and attract private investment.
This report situates philanthropy in this evolving landscape. It offers evidence, insights, and practical pathways for foundations to deepen collaboration, leverage technology, and unlock new forms of capital. In doing so, it aims to demonstrate in concrete terms the role philanthropy can play in building a more equitable, accountable, and effective development finance system – and the obstacles it faces.
“Private philanthropy for development” refers to transactions from the private or non-profit sector having the promotion of the economic development and welfare of low- and middle-income countries as their main objective, and that originate from foundations’ own sources, notably: endowments; donations from companies or individuals (including crowdfunding); legacies; income from royalties; investments (including government securities); dividends; lotteries; and similar. Private philanthropy for development also includes financing for basic or applied research that directly benefits low- and middle-income countries or indirectly benefits them through global public goods. Hereafter, in this report, the term “philanthropy” refers specifically to private philanthropic finance for development, unless otherwise stated.
The following analysis is grounded in two complementary surveys: a financial questionnaire that maps funding volumes, sectors, regions, and instruments, and an organisational questionnaire that explores governance, transparency, evaluation, and partnerships. The sample targeted the largest private philanthropic organisations defined by their annual spending on grant-making or project financing, based on previous OECD research and consultations with multiple regional networks of philanthropic organisations. Together, this dataset offers a holistic view of both the money and the institutions behind it, situating philanthropy within the broader evolution of development co-operation.
The report summarises open, reliable and comparable data collected from 506 philanthropic organisations for the period 2020-2023 and includes organisational data on foundations’ strategies from 105 organisations. The format and definitions used in the financial questionnaire are compliant with OECD-DAC statistical standards and classifications, thereby making the data comparable to ODA data. A detailed methodology can be found in Annex A.
Private philanthropy for development reached USD 68.2 billion over 2020-2023. Foundations are increasingly transparent, sharing data on their funding and priorities. This third edition of Private Philanthropy for Development, covering 506 organisations over the 2020-2023 period, builds on a sample of 205 foundations from 2016-2019. Beyond large foundations that report regularly to the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and those reporting directly to the OECD Centre on Philanthropy, data were collected from secondary sources in a selected group of countries where public registries of domestic philanthropy are available, such as Mexico and India (for Corporate Social Responsibility). This edition captures a substantially larger number of foundations operating in China than previous editions, providing precious insights into domestic philanthropy in that country.
Philanthropic disbursements across domestic and cross-border flows exhibited diverging trends over 2020-2023 (Figure 1.1). Cross-border philanthropy remained relatively stable, ranging between USD 12.6 billion and USD 13.7 billion annually. In contrast, domestic philanthropy declined steadily, falling from USD 4.6 billion in 2020 to USD 3.5 billion in 2023 – a 24% decrease. This contraction reflected a return to pre-pandemic spending levels after the surge in domestic philanthropic funding in emerging markets during the 2020 COVID-19 response, as well as resource constraints following pandemic-related expenditures and economic disruptions. Philanthropic funding toward Asia declined from USD 4.9 billion in 2020 to USD 4.6 billion in 2023, Latin America and the Caribbean from USD 2.7 billion to USD 2.3 billion, while Africa grew steadily from USD 4.0 billion to USD 4.8 billion over the same period, surpassing Asia’s level by 2023. Disbursements to Europe rose sharply from a negligible level to USD 0.5 billion, largely driven by the response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Philanthropic disbursements over time and by region (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)
Note: Funding to Oceania has been excluded for visual purposes due to its low aggregate volumes. Global or unspecified funding has also been excluded from the visualisation.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development financial survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Africa has emerged as the top recipient region of cross-border flows, following a steady yearly increase from 2020 to 2023. Africa received USD 17.6 billion (33% of total cross-border philanthropy giving). For comparison, in terms of ODA, Africa was also the largest recipient over 2020-2023 with USD 193 billion. Cross-border foundations provided the bulk of funding to Africa over 2020-2023, with all seven top donors representing international entities. The Gates Foundation was the largest contributor at USD 6.4 billion (36%), followed by the Mastercard Foundation at USD 4.6 billion (26%) (Figure 1.2).
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Domestic foundations in emerging markets provided substantial local support. In China, India and Mexico – where accurate and extensive data on activity from domestic private foundations have been collected for this report – domestic philanthropic contributions surpassed cross-border flows (Figure 1.3). China mobilised USD 8.3 billion in domestic philanthropic funding, accounting for 94% of the country’s total philanthropic contributions; India mobilised USD 4.0 billion (65%), and Mexico USD 2.9 billion (88%). To fully capture philanthropy’s contribution to development, however, greater efforts are needed to document the growing domestic philanthropic sector in Africa, South-East Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean.
Philanthropy allocable disbursements, by top recipient country (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)
Note: Excludes non-allocable/global funding.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development financial survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
Health and education received the most philanthropic funding, reaching together USD 34.8 billion over 2020-2023. Private philanthropy remains a key partner and funder in health and education. These two sectors accounted for half of total philanthropic disbursements (51%) and are comparable to 26% of ODA spending for health and education. Philanthropic flows exhibited large donor concentration: 55% of total health-related giving for came from the Gates Foundation. Contributions to education from international donors (USD 4.0 billion) surpassed those from domestic foundations (USD 3.6 billion) between 2020 and 2023. The Mastercard Foundation provided half of the cross-border philanthropic flows for education.
Top sectors for philanthropy – health, education and government and civil society – are aligned with ODA’s top priority sectors (Figure 1.4). Within health, both ODA providers and (domestic and international) philanthropic donors largely concentrate their funding on infectious disease control (64% and 55% respectively). Against a backdrop of sustained reductions in ODA for health and education from 2023 to 2025 (OECD, 2025[6]), philanthropic support to these sectors may play a growing complementary role, including in leveraging additional resources. Philanthropic donors are also significant funders of causes and institutions supported by civil society at large, which is the third-largest sector receiving philanthropic funding (7%).
Philanthropic and ODA gross disbursements, by sector allocation (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development financial survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System.
A relatively sizeable share of philanthropic funding was allocated to cross-cutting priorities, such as gender equality and climate action. Gender-specific funding amounted to 8% (USD 5.3 billion) of private philanthropy for development, compared with 2% (USD 14 billion) of total ODA. Philanthropic gender-specific giving was primarily channelled toward sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) (USD 4.2 billion; 81% of gender-specific funding). A total of USD 6.8 billion in private philanthropic funding was directed toward climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, representing 10% of total private philanthropy for development. Philanthropic climate-related funding was primarily targeted to environmental policy and administrative management (19%) and renewable energy generation across multiple technologies (13%).
Co-financing is extensive, represents a core operational practice for foundations, and involves a wide range of actors. Co-financing is common among the sample of foundations reporting to the OECD organisational questionnaire: more than two-thirds (68%) reported collaborating on four or more projects. Co-financed development projects (i.e. implemented in ODA-eligible countries) were undertaken in collaboration with more than 300 external partners, primarily private foundations (38%), private companies (26%), and international NGOs (10%). Domestic or local NGOs accounted for less than 10% of external partners involved in co-financing, showing once more the difficulties foundations encounter in living up to their commitments on locally led development.
The thematic focus of co‑financing partnerships varies across regions. In Africa and Asia‑Pacific, education emerged as a central area for collaborative investment (accounting for 42% and 56% regional allocations, respectively), whereas it played a far more limited role in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and Europe (representing only 7% and 4% of regional allocations, respectively). By contrast, environmental protection featured prominently in both Europe and global portfolios (accounting for 55% and 27% regional allocations). In LAC, institutional and financial sectors stood out (representing 75% regional allocations), reflecting the region’s relatively large concentration of high‑value projects. Taken together, these variations illustrate that co‑financing differs not only in scale across regions but also in the strategic purposes it serves.
Participation patterns in co-financing arrangements reveal sectoral differences, with the most diverse partnerships found in water, sanitation, and financial services. Across all projects, co‑financing involved an average of two distinct partner types (such as foundations, private companies, NGOs, and development agencies), indicating a moderately diversified collaboration landscape. Water supply and sanitation, as well as banking and financial services, stood out with an average of three partner types per project, the highest levels observed. Social infrastructure and services also displayed elevated diversity (2.95), followed by multisector activities (2.44). Even government and civil society (2.3) and education (2.2) slightly exceeded the overall average. These patterns suggest that sectors requiring technical expertise, regulatory engagement, or complex multi‑stakeholder co-ordination tend to mobilise more heterogeneous co‑financing coalitions.
Some sectors rely more on partnerships within the same country, while others rely more heavily on cross‑border collaboration. Multisector projects showed the highest share of partnerships between organisations from the same country (68%), followed by education and social infrastructure (both 56%). In these sectors, collaboration tends to take place among organisations operating within the same national context. By contrast, government and civil society and general environmental protection displayed much higher shares of partnerships involving organisations from different countries (72% and 74%, respectively), indicating that projects in these sectors require international co-operation and multi‑country engagement more frequently.
Visually mapping networks of philanthropic collaboratives over 2020-2023 reveals a combination of dense clusters. This network visualisation maps collaboration relationships among organisations based on co-participation in projects. Each node represents an organisation, and a link between two nodes indicates that the organisations have participated together in at least one project. Figure 1.5 zooms in on the five most connected organisations from the wider network – Gates Foundation, Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), Oak Foundation, Porticus, and Fundação Itaú Social – and visualises their immediate collaborators. It describes a combination of dense clusters which correspond to groups of organisations that are frequently linked through shared project participation, either directly or through common partners, suggesting recurring collaboration within thematic or regional areas of focus. The colours of the nodes correspond to different types of organisations (such as private philanthropic foundations, development agencies, domestic NGOs, private companies, etc.), while the triangular nodes indicate the respondents to the organisational survey who provided the underlying data.
Limited awareness among donors of one another's objectives continues to constrain the full potential of collaborative funding. The most cited barrier was identifying partners – both private philanthropic donors and ODA providers – with aligned interests (39% of respondents). While more foundations now publicly share information on their granting priorities and strategies (69%), further progress is still needed to incentivise and centralise the production, compilation, and aggregation of philanthropic data on granting opportunities. One of the first steps could be to build on existing open-access giving platforms, such as 360Giving in the UK, Philanthropy Data Commons and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).
Top five private foundations by number of co-financing partners (2020-2023)
Note: Data are based on responses from 97 respondents to the OECD organisational survey, in which they were asked to report the name of the co-financed initiative, project, grant or organisation. Respondents were also asked to indicate the names of all organisations involved in the co-financing, including those with financing or implementing roles, across both public and private actors.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
The following insights draw on responses from 105 organisations to thematic modules of the OECD organisational questionnaire (see Annex A).
Traditional grants remain the predominant instrument used by foundations, with limited uptake of innovative financing tools. A large majority of respondents (87%) reported using grants, alongside matching grants (33%), while few used alternative financial instruments such as loans (19%), equity (16%), equity (16%) or guarantees (9%). Furthermore, the continued reliance on earmarked, project‑specific funding indicates that unrestricted, long‑term support – particularly for local organisations – remains insufficient.
Most foundations surveyed adopt a “catalytic philanthropy” approach, providing additional non-financial support across a wide range of areas. Nearly all foundations (96%) that responded to the OECD organisational questionnaire provided some form of non-financial assistance to grantees (Figure 1.6). This support most commonly takes the form of access to networks and coalitions of funders (80%), as well as support with monitoring and evaluation, communication and advocacy (69%). Some respondents were also actively engaged in strengthening the management capacity of their grantees (67%).
Share of respondents, by support type
Note: Respondents were asked to identify the types of non-financial support they provide. Based on 105 respondents. Respondents could choose multiple options.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
Evaluation capacity is growing among foundations, but the rigorous impact testing of programmes remains underutilised. Only very few foundations rigorously test the impact of their programmes with counterfactual methods – randomised controlled trials (17%) and cost-effectiveness analysis (34%). While over half of respondents (54%) reported having a dedicated evaluation role or unit separate from programme departments, foundations find it challenging to produce rigorous evaluations (68%) and translate these evaluation results into actionable insights (51%).
Limited transparency is impeding learning about what works best across the philanthropic sector. Philanthropic donors more frequently disclosed general information on their governance (78%) and expenditures (56%) than detailed project-level evaluations (28%) or information on the performance and impact of their giving (17%). While the decision not to disclose evaluation results limits learning opportunities for peers and partners, it is in part due to privacy concerns and fear of putting grantees at risk (18%).
Foundations are sustaining efforts to integrate gender perspectives into their giving. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) indicated that they finance activities aimed at reducing gender inequalities, as a primary and/or secondary objective. This share was consistent with that of the 2016-2019 OECD organisational survey (OECD, 2021[13]), suggesting stability in the integration of gender policy objectives over time. Furthermore, most respondents targeted gender equality through capacity-building initiatives (80%) and direct provision of services and goods to women and girls (70%).
Most foundations integrate a locally led development approach in their programmatic work. However, local entities and communities partnering with philanthropies are more often positioned as mere implementers rather than co-creators and learning partners. Over half of respondents (54%) applied a locally led development lens in their work, and most foundations collaborated with local partners throughout programming – primarily for implementation, rather than for ex-ante design or ex-post evaluation (Figure 1.7). Specifically, local actors were most engaged – whether it is a partial or a significant engagement – across programme delivery (73%), then design (67%), and less in evaluation (57%).
Engagement intensity with local actors, across organisations’ strategic areas
Note: Answers to the question “To what extent is your organisation’s strategy informed by local actors?”. Engagement intensity was captured in the questionnaire using four response options: “Not at all”, “Some engagement”, “Partial engagement”, and “Significant engagement”. Based on 91 respondents. Respondents were asked to select a single option to describe engagement intensity for each programme phase.
Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development organisational survey.
Operational and administrative constraints, as well as local ecosystem challenges, limited foundations’ ambition to further engage in locally led development. When asked why they did not engage more with the front lines, respondents highlighted higher transaction costs (32%) and complex due diligence processes (26%), alongside limited absorptive capacity among local actors (30%) and difficulties in identifying local grantees (23%).
1.5.1. Foundations
Foundations should scale up their role as catalysers of development finance. By engaging in blended finance structures tailored to organisational size and capacity, and by pooling their resources, foundations could leverage philanthropic capital to mobilise additional public and private resources. For example, in December 2025, South Africa launched the world’s largest Early Childhood Care and Education outcomes fund supported by the LEGO Foundation and domestic philanthropic partners. More work is needed to design blended finance vehicles that cater to a wide range of international and domestic philanthropic funders, starting with their needs and constraints in mind, and to understand the actual effectiveness of blended finance structures in mobilising additional resources for development.
Foundations should increase the provision of longer-term, unrestricted funding, particularly for front-line organisations, including community-led and women-led organisations. When context-relevant, they should prioritise core support over project-specific grants to strengthen grantees’ organisational sustainability and enable local systems-change.
Prioritise sectors and cross-cutting issues in which philanthropy can demonstrate clear added value. Foundations could strategically build on their existing sectoral concentration in areas where philanthropy already demonstrates a competitive advantage and allocates a proportionally higher share of funding than ODA, such as gender-specific initiatives and certain areas of infectious disease control. Rather than attempting to provide comprehensive coverage, which would not be realistic geographically nor thematically, philanthropies could identify strategic niches in which they can act as a catalyst, such as supporting civil society and women’s organisations in politically constrained environments, backing disease-specific initiatives like polio eradication, and piloting innovations – including AI technologies – that are too risky for public funding. Data and evidence should be shared to prove the effectiveness of this approach.
Increase transparency and deliver more predictable and accountable programming. Foundations should disclose information on their grantees more systematically, including, where possible, through databases of grants and project-level information. Data on evaluation results from programmes should also be shared more systematically, as already recommended in the second edition of Private Philanthropy for Development. Foundations could also contribute to the Development Evaluation Resource Centre (DEReC),1 an extensive and unique repository of over 4 000 evaluation reports (primarily from development agencies as for now) and regularly updated to facilitate learning and provide evidence of effective practices.
Build internal and external evaluation capabilities, including by partnering with academic institutions and local research bodies. Given the limited internal and partner capacity to conduct rigorous evaluations, foundations could initially invest in external learning partnerships (with academia, research consultancies in local markets) to help grantees design and implement their M&E and further undertake impact evaluations in close collaboration with project teams.
Engage and collaborate with governments and other development stakeholders to scale up proven solutions. Rather than attempt to scale projects and programmes themselves – which stretches philanthropic resources thin and creates unsustainable dependency – the sector could seek a division of labour: foundations fund innovation, early-stage proof of concept, and rigorous testing, while national governments take over delivery and financing at scale once programmes have proven successful. Foundation funding then covers the costly work of rigorous testing, iteration, and the transition period where governments build capacity to deliver the intervention themselves. In practice, scaling partnerships between private actors, philanthropic donors, and government departments have emerged to expand proven learning approaches in schools at the national level, notably in Ghana through the SCALE initiative2 and in Côte d’Ivoire through the Child Learning and Education Facility (CLEF).3
Further invest in learning and knowledge sharing among philanthropic donors and beyond. To facilitate evidence-based peer learning among foundations, structured spaces and communities of practice should be created and mobilised, grounded in data and evaluation results, extending beyond the small group of large foundations that currently publish such evidence. This can help diffuse learning more broadly across the philanthropic sector and beyond. At the same time, foundations could promote the uptake of rigorous evaluation and learning across the wider development ecosystem by investing in advocacy that demonstrates the value of impact evaluations and cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses, and by showcasing how evidence can inform strategic decision-making and improve programme effectiveness.
Deepen engagement with domestic philanthropic ecosystems. International foundations should engage more systematically with local philanthropic actors, including domestic foundations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, to co-create solutions, share contextual knowledge, and align efforts with locally identified priorities. Domestic foundations can also play an intermediary role by connecting international funders with local prospect organisations, facilitating trust-based partnerships, and helping to navigate local institutional and regulatory environments.
Improve the transparency and ease of grant-making processes. Foundations should enhance transparency in their funding processes, including by expanding the use of open or rolling calls for proposals (open to a wide range of local partners including research institutes, NGOs and social enterprises), clarifying selection criteria, and simplifying application and reporting requirements to reduce barriers for local organisations.
Further support the enabling environment for local actors and institutions. Philanthropic actors can contribute to accelerating domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) and help unlock development rooted in local priorities and driven by local institutions, for example by investing in digital tax platforms and systems that enhance fiscal transparency and government accountability. In addition, philanthropic leaders can play a key role in strengthening and increasing the visibility of domestic giving infrastructure, including community endowment funds, local platforms, and philanthropy networks.
1.5.2. Governments
Create enabling regulatory and reporting frameworks for domestic philanthropy. Governments should establish incentive-based regulatory and tax environments that support domestic philanthropy, while mandating transparent reporting to improve accountability and data availability. This can include requiring the online publication of philanthropic activities in countries with existing annual reporting obligations, as already implemented in the United States, India (for Corporate Social Responsibility) and Mexico. Where mandatory reporting is not in place, regional or national foundation networks can play a complementary role in organising and updating data on philanthropic giving.
Harmonise ESG standards to support sustainable investment of foundations’ endowments. Policy makers and standard-setting bodies should work towards greater harmonisation of ESG compliance standards to ensure that investments made by foundations through their endowments are aligned with sustainability objectives and internationally recognised norms, while reducing fragmentation and compliance burdens for philanthropic actors operating across jurisdictions.
Design and support inclusive blended finance structures. Development finance institutions (DFIs) and public development banks (PDBs) – mandated by national governments – should ensure that the conditions are in place for blended finance vehicles to be accessible to both large and small foundations, with governance and risk-sharing arrangements that enable equitable participation across different types of philanthropic actors. They should also ensure the enabling conditions are in place for other public actors to blend resources with philanthropies and for philanthropies to engage more with financial solutions and new financing vehicles – including regulation, incentives, technical assistance, etc.
1.5.3. Wider donor community – ODA providers as well as public or private stakeholders
Further engage in blended finance solutions between philanthropies and public development banks to scale up SDG-aligned investments in emerging and underfunded economies. Donors should foster partnerships across philanthropy, multilateral development banks, development finance institutions and the private sector to move successful innovations beyond pilot stages, particularly in underfunded regions. Structuring collaborative approaches for PDBs and philanthropies to engage and scale their potential requires concerted and targeted action on both sides. The creation of collaboration fora encouraging stronger links and awareness building is also critical.
Support match-making platforms to channel the various blended finance opportunities to development actors, making it easier for these to find appropriate philanthropic and private sector partners, while having a more agile flow of information.
References
[10] Convergence (2024), State of Blended Finance, https://www.convergence.finance/resource/state-of-blended-finance-2024/view (accessed on 19 January 2026).
[2] Matzner, A. and L. Steininger (2025), “SDG Agenda: Financing gaps in developing countries”, https://financing.desa.un.org/document/sdg-agenda-financing-gaps-developing-countries.
[11] McArthur Foundation (2025), “Humanity AI Commits $500 Million to Build a People-Centered Future for AI”, https://www.macfound.org/press/press-releases/humanity-ai-commits-500-million-to-build-a-people-centered-future-for-ai (accessed on 9 December 2025).
[6] OECD (2025), Cuts in official development assistance: OECD projections for 2025 and the near term, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8c530629-en.
[4] OECD (2024), “International aid rises in 2023 with increased support to Ukraine and humanitarian needs”, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2024/04/international-aid-rises-in-2023-with-increased-support-to-ukraine-and-humanitarian-needs.html (accessed on 9 December 2025).
[13] OECD (2021), Private Philanthropy for Development – Second Edition: Data for Action, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf37f1e-en.
[12] The Rockefeller Foundation (2025), “New Analysis: International Finance for Climate and Health Increased to US$7.1 Billion in 2022, but Financing Remains Difficult to Access for the Most Climate-Impacted Countries”, https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/new-analysis-international-finance-for-climate-and-health-increased-to-us7-1-billion-in-2022-but-financing-remains-difficult-to-access-for-the-most-climate-impacted-countries/ (accessed on 9 December 2025).
[9] UN (2025), FFD4 Sevilla Platform for Action Initiatives Full List Advancing Africa-Europe cooperation on Climate, Trade and Development Africa-Europe Foundation, https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/ffd4-documents/2025/FFD4%20SEVILLA%20PLATFORM%20FOR%20ACTION%20INITIATIVES_Full%20List.pdf.
[8] UN (2025), Outcome document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development I. A renewed global financing for development framework, https://docs.un.org/en/A/CONF.227/2025/L.1.
[1] UN (2025), The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, https://desapublications.un.org/publications/sustainable-development-goals-report-2025.
[3] UN (2021), Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2021, Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development, United Nations, New York, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2021-Report.pdf.
[5] WMO (2025), “WMO confirms 2024 as warmest year on record at about 1.55°C above pre-industrial level”, https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level (accessed on 9 December 2025).
[7] World Bank (2024), International Debt Report 2023, World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-2032-8.